UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marvin said:
Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.
Click to expand...

I'd say the answer to your question is that the reality is most football fans, that don't support City, do not accept that City generate their own revenue and doing something like you suggest the commentators should do, might alter that perception.
 
mrbelfry said:
Some inane rambling thoughts

1) Der Speigal reports that Mansour has been funnelling money into City via Etihad sponsorships
2) This deal had previously been seen as a non related party so there was no restriction on how much Etihad could sponsor us
3) With the suggestion that the Sheik has funnelled money in it potentially becomes a related party? If so then rate the sponsorship at fair value and we fail FFP by an additional amount that is the difference between the amount we claimed less the new calculated fair value rate. We failed FFP anyway and we don't seem to be disputing that beyond the taking a pinch comment years ago.
4) if the issue of related parties isn't the problem then the problem is we hid those payments from UEFA? Other 'creative' bits of accounting were spotted and from memory we agreed to not increase some sponsorships and not allowed to centralise some salaries to the CFG (if my memory is correct)

Now I presume City know what we are being investigated for - have UEFA officially said or is it just 'leaks' ?

If we are being investigated based on the der Spiegel allegations then have they seen the data dump or are they basing the investigation on what was reported in the papers? If they've seen the data dump then how are they sure they have seen all the relevant files AND/OR a complete collection of data that was stolen? If they have seen a complete collection of data that was stolen how can they be sure they have seen all the documents that exist? There could be a bunch of files and emails that they haven't seen simply because they weren't stolen.

If they have not had access to the data dump then are they simply basing their investigation on what was reported? What criteria are they then using to determine facts other than it says it in the paper?

If they ask City "hey guys is this true?" and then City say "nah bro we good" on what basis are they continuing their investigation? Have they established the legitimacy of the stolen emails and if they are legitimate the context in which they exist? Presumably they've asked for explantation which City have provided. They've intimated they have more questions but then in the meantime passed the case on to another chamber.

And all this isn't for breaking rules we've already been found guilty of breaking and been punished for BUT for allegedly hiding some payments from ADUG to Etihad which is evidenced by the phrase "his highness" in a stolen and out of context email. Payments which didn't cause us to escape punishment for rules we broke? Payments which if we had made would have potentially caused those sponsorship deals to be classed as related parties and subject to fair value tests which would have only still meant we failed FFP?

But if this is the case then haven't we committed an actual criminal offence? By not disclosing a related party transaction? Or is the payment immaterial because Mansour is not a related party to Etihad?
Click to expand...

Did you mean inane, or insane ?
 
laserblue said:
The bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia is huge and one part of it owns a huge multinational conglomerate construction company. Osama was most definitely the odd one out in his very large extended family.

I'd venture to suggest that the vast majority of observers would be more focused on the bin Laden angle than the £3 million.
Click to expand...
No different to our situation really, sheikh Mansour is not uae, but is portrayed as such
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I'd say the answer to your question is that the reality is most football fans, that don't support City, do not accept that City generate their own revenue and doing something like you suggest the commentators should do, might alter that perception.
Click to expand...

I agree. How many times have we heard or read fans of other clubs respond to City's financial results that it's impossible to generate that level of money in such short time, the sponsorships are fake, the books have been cooked, the sheikh buys up all the tickets not bought by our miniscule fan base, etc., etc.
 
kevin1987 said:
Rumour going around that Sheffield United, Aston Villa and Derby (possibly Derby but might be wrong) will all fail FFP like Birmingham did, but they are delaying providing the EFL with accounts until the end of the season. Not sure how it would work if one got promoted seems as Birmingham were deducted points.
Click to expand...


wolves failed and escaped punishment because they were promoted
 
mrbelfry said:
Some inane rambling thoughts

1) Der Speigal reports that Mansour has been funnelling money into City via Etihad sponsorships
2) This deal had previously been seen as a non related party so there was no restriction on how much Etihad could sponsor us
3) With the suggestion that the Sheik has funnelled money in it potentially becomes a related party? If so then rate the sponsorship at fair value and we fail FFP by an additional amount that is the difference between the amount we claimed less the new calculated fair value rate. We failed FFP anyway and we don't seem to be disputing that beyond the taking a pinch comment years ago.
4) if the issue of related parties isn't the problem then the problem is we hid those payments from UEFA? Other 'creative' bits of accounting were spotted and from memory we agreed to not increase some sponsorships and not allowed to centralise some salaries to the CFG (if my memory is correct)

Now I presume City know what we are being investigated for - have UEFA officially said or is it just 'leaks' ?

If we are being investigated based on the der Spiegel allegations then have they seen the data dump or are they basing the investigation on what was reported in the papers? If they've seen the data dump then how are they sure they have seen all the relevant files AND/OR a complete collection of data that was stolen? If they have seen a complete collection of data that was stolen how can they be sure they have seen all the documents that exist? There could be a bunch of files and emails that they haven't seen simply because they weren't stolen.

If they have not had access to the data dump then are they simply basing their investigation on what was reported? What criteria are they then using to determine facts other than it says it in the paper?

If they ask City "hey guys is this true?" and then City say "nah bro we good" on what basis are they continuing their investigation? Have they established the legitimacy of the stolen emails and if they are legitimate the context in which they exist? Presumably they've asked for explantation which City have provided. They've intimated they have more questions but then in the meantime passed the case on to another chamber.

And all this isn't for breaking rules we've already been found guilty of breaking and been punished for BUT for allegedly hiding some payments from ADUG to Etihad which is evidenced by the phrase "his highness" in a stolen and out of context email. Payments which didn't cause us to escape punishment for rules we broke? Payments which if we had made would have potentially caused those sponsorship deals to be classed as related parties and subject to fair value tests which would have only still meant we failed FFP?

But if this is the case then haven't we committed an actual criminal offence? By not disclosing a related party transaction? Or is the payment immaterial because Mansour is not a related party to Etihad?
Click to expand...

Can I add to the ramblings by adding that I was under the impression that the Etihad sponsorship was deemed fair value anyway regardless of whether it was related party or not.
And that we agreed on the other two sponsors, to give up certain practices.
All were fair value, I thought.
Am I wrong?
 
Parisian said:
I have to admit FFP is good for owners though.
Not the ambitious kind of owners like PSG and City ones but the Glazers, Kroenke of this world. Their clubs passively make money thanks to their history and stature and they can just get the cash without having to invest a dime.
PSG and City are nightmare for them because they have to explain why they are not investing in the market when they are making so much money.
Click to expand...
Exactly this...I live in the US and all the major sports here have a "salary cap" of some sort (not exactly the same thing as the FFP regs as it is only concerned with player's salaries) and it's always couched as a way to keep competitive balance. But really it's just a way for owners to suppress wages since it prevents owners who would otherwise be willing to invest big money in their team and pay top players more from doing so by limiting the amount they can pay. It's so bad leagues like the NBA put in a salary floor to stop some owners from pretty much putting out the cheapest squad they could put together.
 
Mr Belfry
I believe related party only refers to individuals or bodies corporate if they have a controlling interest in the company. Merely giving money to a company doesn't enable anyone to conclude they would have a controlling interest in that company. Proving that would likely be impossible.
"Dear Etihad please can we have a good look at your bank accounts for 2012-13?
Err absolutely not fuck off! We can assure you we paid the full sponsorship amount to MCFC
Oh OK."
 
DAV771 said:
Hi,

Please don't ban me as this is my first post and I'm just interested to get some answers. I came on here this morning as obviously we've all seen the news and I wanted to gauge what the average City fans reaction is.

Now (here comes the part where I fear I'll be banned) it seems that looking at the club from the outside there's obvious "financial doping" going on. I can't see how City could have achieved this much success in such a short space of time without it.

So, I am just wondering where the thoughts that UEFA have an agenda against City are coming from? I understand the opinion that FFP caters to the established big teams and ensures that they remain that way, but aside from that, I can't see what other reason there is to be angry? Surely UEFA are investigating/bringing charges for a reason other than they just don't like City.

They wouldn't just be looking into the club for no reason either, right? There's no smoke without fire & all that?

Apologies for signing up just to ask a simple questions but I know no City fans personally and there's no chance of getting sense out of anyone on Twitter etc

Even breaking it down to the most simple terms, as I (the average, not massively invested football fan) see it, City agreed to play by certain rules and have essentially broken or attempted to break those rules. Is this correct?

Again, please don't ban me for this. I'm just a confused neutral with no idea what's going on!

Thanks
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum Lar.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
Felix and Rodri?
Click to expand...

Transfer thread is that way, Trev ;)

If it were down to me, however, I'd be slapping my schlong on the table and next to me would be sat 15 wheelbarrows full of £200m worth of one euro coins, dumped on the fucking office of the Barca boardroom and I'm walking out with Messi.

I'd obviously be furnished with a GoPro, streaming it live over the Internet, before firing a glance which says, 'C'mon you fucking crooks, see you in court.'
 
Surprised nobody from Citys legal team haven't been on to Sky to tell their fucking expert we are not accused of "inflating sponsorships"
Also to tell them to remind everybody these allegations of "misleading investigators" if thats what it is - refer to events in 2012-13 and we have not spent more than we have earned for the last 4 years and even finished above Liverpool in the Net Spend Cup this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top